Fly-tipping incidents and actions 2018/19 update – Notes on datasets

This collections of fly-tipping datasets accompanies the annual Defra publication “Fly-tipping statistics for England”, which can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fly-tipping-in-england

Please see the publication for further information on data methodology, revisions and estimates.

Fixed penalty notices: New powers for local authorities to issue FPNs specifically for fly-tipping came into force in May 2016 and FPNs for breaches of household duty of care came into force in January 2019.

Data not available

Fly-tipping returns for some local authorities may be missing, incomplete or found to contain errors during Defra’s quality assurance process. In these cases, some or all of the annual figures may be unavailable for those local authorities. However, in order to maintain trends over time for the aggregated totals, estimates may be made for these figures that will be included in the published totals, but not made available in the local authority breakdown. For this reason, the England totals may be higher than the sum of regional totals and the sum of individual local authorities.

In previous years, there have sometimes been small discrepancies between the total fly-tipping incidents reported by land type and by waste type. Where this occurred, the higher of the two values has been reported as the overall total incidents figure. Incidents recorded by size category relate to those investigated and cleared by the local authority. For a number of reasons, but primarily due to incidents on private land, which an authority may not clear, total incidents by size category will not match total incidents recorded by land/waste type.

Defra are aware that actions data is missing for a small number of local authorities each year. The local authorities in question account for between 2% and 4% of total fly-tipping incidents.

Incidents recorded by size category relate to those investigated and cleared by the local authority. For a number of reasons, but primarily due to incidents on private land (which an authority may not clear) total incidents by size category will not match total incidents recorded by land/waste-type.

Revisions

In the 2017/18 release revisions were made to previous years’ incidents data for Kirklees, Nottingham and Redbridge, as well as revisions to previous years’ actions data for Brent, Croydon and Kirklees. Minor revisions were also made to 2013/14 national totals for some actions categories.

In December 2018, minor updates have been made to 2017/18 actions data for Kirklees and Leeds, following revisions by those local authorities.

Note that there is some level of estimation in the data, where returns for certain local authorities were missing or incomplete. See 'LA Incidents and Actions 2012-13 to 2017-18' and the 'Revisions Policy' section of the statistical release for more detail on revisions and estimation.

2012/13 (a) Nottingham City Council reported only a total incidents figure for 2012/13. Therefore for all other categories, estimates have been made for the aggregated figure. 2013/14 (a) Poole BC did not provide complete data for 2013/14. (b) Nottingham City Council reported only a total incidents figure for 2013/14. Therefore for all other categories, estimates have been made for the aggregated figure.

2014/15 (a) Newham LB have provided the following comment regarding the increase in their fly-tipping incidents. "Fly tipping is a challenge for every local authority, in Newham we strive to ensure our streets are clean and safe for residents as well as visitors to the borough so we take a pro-active approach to street cleansing. The state-of-the-art in-cab technology used by Newham Council provides an accurate picture of the waste dumped on the borough's streets. The ease of recording, combined with multiple street cleansing rounds carried out daily, seven days a week, results in a high level of fly tips recorded. To combat the problem we have carried out educational visits from officers to businesses and residents, targeted on problem areas highlighted by our data, to raise the profile of legitimate methods of waste disposal in the borough. In addition we gather intelligence from fly tips in order to take robust enforcement action against those that flout the law, during 2014/15 Newham Council issued 1,955 fixed penalty notices and prosecuted 318 people for littering and fly tipping offences. It is hoped this combined approach will begin to drive down the number of fly tips that we see in the future." (b) Poole BC did not provide data for 2014/15 but an estimate has been made for the aggregated figure. (c) Tameside MBC provided 9 months of data for 2014/15 therefore the remaining months have been estimated. (d) Newcastle upon Tyne City Council reported only a total incidents figure for 2014/15. Therefore for all other categories, estimates have been made for the aggregated figure. (e) Nottingham City Council reported only a total incidents figure for 2014/15. Therefore for all other categories, estimates have been made for the aggregated figure.

2015/16 (a) Croydon had reported extremely large numbers in the categories marked ‘other’ for waste type and land type and were unable to provide an accurate figure so an estimate for the full year over all categories was made. (b) For Barnet, Bracknell Forest, Christchurch, Hounslow, Kettering, Lewisham, Norwich, Tamworth, Weymouth and Portland clearance costs were estimated for the size of waste categories relating to ‘tipper lorry size’ and ‘significant/multi load’. (c) Where category for land type or waste type data breakdowns did not sum to the totals entered, a small adjustment was made to the category with most incidents: Bromsgrove, Carlisle, Mid Devon, Newcastle Upon type, North Dorset, Redditch and Tewkesbury had waste type ‘other’ (unidentified) incidents estimated. Richmond upon Thames, Tameside, and Tower Hamlets had household black bags estimated. Land type measures were estimated for Eastleigh. Private/Residential estimates were made for Leicester, a council land estimate was made for Redditch and Newcastle upon Tyne, Back alleyways were estimated for South Tyneside, Highways were estimated for Mid Devon, North East Derbyshire and North East Lincolnshire. (d) One local authority provided figures based on customer-reported fly-tips only. These have been included at local-authority-level in this dataset, but the national totals include estimates for total fly-tips to ensure the headline totals are reported on a basis that is consistent with the rest of the timeseries. (e) Nottingham City Council reported only a total incidents figure for 2015/16. Therefore for all other categories, estimates have been made for the aggregated figure. 2016/17 (a) Thurrock submitted incomplete data for quarters one and two, and had unresolved data queries for quarters three and four, so an estimate was made by Defra for the full year. Total incidents were provided but the return was missing breakdowns by land type, waste type, a size, so estimates were made based on the proportions from 2015/16. (b) Land type and waste type breakdowns did not sum to the total incidents for Redditch, as there was one more total incident than in the breakdowns, so a small adjustment was made to the “Other – unidentified” categories. (c) Returns from 17 local authorities for 2016/17 had missing entries for the ‘tipper lorry load’ and/or ‘significant/multi load’ clearance costs. These were estimated for Arun, Barnet, Bristol, Carlisle, Crawley, Hammersmith and Fulham, Herefordshire, Kettering, North Somerset, Norwich, Preston, Redbridge, Rochdale, Suffolk Coastal, Thurrock, West Lancashire, and Windsor and Maidenhead. (d) One local authority provided figures based on customer-reported fly-tips only. These have been included at local-authority-level in this dataset, but the national totals include estimates for total fly-tips to ensure the headline totals are reported on a basis that is consistent with the rest of the timeseries. (e) Nottingham City Council reported only a total incidents figure for 2016/17. Therefore for all other categories, estimates have been made for the aggregated figure. (f) Redbridge provided 9 months of data for 2016/17 therefore the remaining months have been estimated.

2017/18 (a) Two local authorities provided figures based on customer-reported fly-tips only. These have been included at local-authority-level in this dataset, but the national totals include estimates for total fly-tips to ensure the headline totals are reported on a basis that is consistent with the rest of the timeseries. (b) Redbridge provided 9 months of data for 2017/18 therefore the remaining months have been estimated. (c) Returns from 10 local authorities for 2017/18 had missing entries for the ‘tipper lorry load’ and/or ‘significant/multi load’ clearance costs. These were estimated for Bristol, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, North Somerset, North Tyneside, Northumberland, Rochdale, Sheffield, West Dorset, and Windsor and Maidenhead. (d) FPN breakdown data has been voluntarily provided by some local authorities for FPNs issued in 2017/18, but it should be noted that this data has not been subject to the same rigorous quality-assurance checks as the rest of the data, and should therefore be interpreted with care.

2018/19 (a) Four local authorities (Enfield, Fareham, Newham and Pendle) provided figures based on customer-reported fly-tips only. These have been included at local-authority-level in this dataset, but the national totals include estimates for total fly-tips to ensure the headline totals are reported on a basis that is consistent with the rest of the timeseries. (b) Tunbridge Wells and Isle of Wight provided 9 months of data for 2018/19 therefore the remaining months have been estimated. The estimates are included in the national totals but not shown in this local-authority dataset. (c) Redbridge did not provide data for 2018/19 but an estimate has been made. The estimates are included in the national totals but not shown in this local-authority dataset. (d) Land type and waste type breakdowns did not sum to the total incidents for Bolsover, as there were 166 more total incidents than in the breakdowns, so an adjustment was made to the “Other – unidentified” and “Other household waste” categories. Waste type breakdowns did not sum to the total incidents for Rugby, as there were 2 more total incidents than in the breakdowns, so an adjustment was made to the “Other household waste” category.

(e) Returns from 9 local authorities for 2017/18 had missing entries for the ‘tipper lorry load’ and/or ‘significant/multi load’ clearance costs. These were estimated for Arun, Bristol, Cheltenham, Crawley, Eastbourne, Hammersmith and Fulham, Newham, North Somerset and Tunbridge Wells.

(f) Tunbridge Wells did not provide prosecution costs for a quarter of data so this was estimated.

Costs Standard estimated costs are used for most clearance categories and types of enforcement action.

The estimated costs are based on information provided by a range of local authorities between 2003 and 2006 when the Flycapture reporting database was being set up and as new reporting categories were introduced. Due to now being outdated, estimated standard unit costs for the majority of clearance and enforcement categories are no longer being used from the 2017/18 release onwards, and so total cost estimates for fly-tipping clearance and enforcement are not available for 2017/18. The only costs published are clearance costs for ‘tipper lorry load’ and ‘significant/multi load’ incident categories and enforcement costs for ‘prosecutions’ and ‘injunctions’ action categories, which are reported directly by local authorities.

Details below:

Estimated clearance costs for various sizes of fly-tips:

| Category | Cost | |---------------------------|-------| | Single black bag | £7 | | Other single item | £29 | | Car boot load or less | £29 | | Small van load | £56 | | Transit van load | £115 | | Tipper Lorry load | For entry by local authority - actual costs | | Significant multiple loads| For entry by local authority - actual costs |

Estimated costs of enforcement actions:

| Category | Cost | |---------------------------|-------| | Investigation | £33 | | Warning letter | £33 | | Statutory Notice | £33 | | Fixed Penalty Notice | £33 | | Duty of Care Inspection | £33 | | Stop & Search | £324 | | Formal Caution | £33 | | Prosecution | For entry by local authority - actual costs | | Injunction | For entry by local authority - actual costs |